from the no-monkeys-this-time dept

I guess if you're already trying to misuse trademark law, why not also experiment with misusing copyright law? Divorce & criminal law attorney Michael Pascazi was recently featured on these pages for his highly questionable attempt to trademark "Bitcoin," despite the word being in common usage around the world without any connection to Pascazi. Pascazi jumped into our comments with an extremely dubious explanation for his actions, which was quickly responded to by an actual IP attorney who told him he was wrong. Either way, we had a second post discussing Pascazi's reasoning, and why we believed his trademark theories were incorrect. Pascazi, once again, chose to engage in our comments, somewhat mockingly.

That all took place on July 7th & 8th. Apparently, over that weekend, Pascazi decided he wasn't happy with our reporting or how those discussions went, and decided that he was going to misuse copyright law to try to cause some trouble for us. He sent both us and our webhost a DMCA takedown notice demanding that we take down his "copyrighted works" that were posted on our site (despite the fact that the content he's claiming copyright over isn't actually hosted on our, or our web host's, servers -- a slight technical detail that would be obvious to most observers looking at the page). Actually, he goes a bit further than that, trying weakly to extend the DMCA and copyright law to act as a censor for content he apparently does not like:

I request that you immediately take down the offending works [and] issue a cancellation message for the specified postings...

And what are these "offending works?" Well, looking at the DMCA notice (full notice embedded below), he appears to be claiming that both the header and the footer from his law firm's legal correspondence, as well as the header of Magellan Capital Advisors LLC, are copyrights held by him. If you don't recall, Magellan Capital Advisors was supposedly Pascazi's "client," in the attempt to trademark Bitcoin, and a letter sent from Magellan with the header in question was available on the USPTO website as Pascazi's "evidence" for Magellan's use of "Bitcoin" in commerce. You can see this part of the DMCA notice identifying "the works" here:

Yes, Pascazi appears to be threatening us with a copyright infringement claim for posting two documents on corporate stationery of firms he apparently controls, in which he claims copyright over the headers and (with his law firm) footer of that stationery. I do wonder if the content presented is even copyrightable at all, and whether or not Pascazi has bothered to register them. Most of the header and footer appears to be made up entirely of factual information for which there is no copyright. I certainly don't see enough originality in the content or the presentation to establish a valid copyright. There are the logos in the headers to each page, but one would think that would be covered by trademark, rather than copyright, and there's clearly no violation of trademarks in accurately showing the logo of companies we are discussing.

Even if, somehow, somewhere, Pascazi can get a legitimate copyright on the content in question, he still has no valid legal claim against us. Considering Mr. Pascazi's somewhat confused take on trademark law when it came to Bitcoin, I'm wondering if Mr. Pascazi is simply unfamiliar with the very basics of fair use within copyright law -- and the fact fair use must be taken into account before issuing a DMCA takedown notice.

Needless to say, we believe that we are not infringing the "works" in question in any way, shape or form (and even question whether or not there's a valid copyright at all here) and will not be taking them down, despite Mr. Pascazi's attempt to bully us with a blatant legal threat in the form of a DMCA takedown message. Our lawyer is currently in touch with Pascazi and has been trying to explain all of this to him, while reviewing the potential problems one might face when issuing a bogus DMCA takedown. Since we don't suffer bullying lightly, we also wanted to post this info publicly, so people are aware of what's going on.

That's one of those shitty logos those who have no taste whatsoever put on their stationary. No surprise they can't secure serious clients. To my observation absence of taste in logos comes together with overall unprofessionalism of an "enterprise".

18 USC § 512(f)

(f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—

(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,

shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)

Were I in court with this idiot I would feel obliged to point out to the judge that this person passed the same bar examine he did - which would be considered an institutional requirement of knowledge. We don't let doctors say 'oops, I didn't know you need oxygen to live' so why should we let lawyers say 'oops, I thought I knew the law.'

Re: Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)

> Were I in court with this idiot I would feel
> obliged to point out to the judge that this
> person passed the same bar examine he did -
> which would be considered an institutional
> requirement of knowledge.

The ABA Canon of Ethics requires attorneys to verify all legal claims by researching the relevant law before sending demand letters, filing claims, arguing cases, etc.

An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

FYI

I'm by no means commenting on the merits of Pascazi's claims or whether the logos themselves are actually copyrightable, but the fact that they might be protected by TM doesn't foreclose them from being protected by copyright law.

Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

As I said, I was not offering an opinion on whether the logos are actually copyrighted or copyrightable.

I was responding to the following sentence in your post that seemed to suggest that the fact that something might be protected by TM might preclude its having copyright protection:

There are the logos in the headers to each page, but one would think that would be covered by trademark, rather than copyright, and there's clearly no violation of trademarks in accurately showing the logo of companies we are discussing.

Not trying to be snarky...just pointing out something that is somewhat of a popular misconception.

Re: Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

wow that site is just too much. The basic, i am still learning html style, frames. That fuzzy ass logo in the corner which looks like an out of focus picture from a 1 megapixel cell phone camera is great. Ugly ass background with too much contrast between the white center that bothers the eye. The picture of him with the american flag background is priceless. Do you think parcazi had his nephew design the site or was it like a 9th grade class project? I mean what kind of budget do you think he had for that site 3 dollars? He does seem to spend a pretty penny to get positive reviews posted on yahoo and the like.

I see the law firm has managed to submit 6 articles for publication in the last 5 years, so bravo on that.=

Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

ROFLMAO

Asset Protection - Offshore Activities

Pascazi Law Offices has a Special Interest in Asset Protection, Offshore Banking,
Offshore Entity Formation, U.S. Reporting Compliance, and Defense of IRS, and U.S.
Department of Justice Criminal & Civil Investigations and Prosecutions.

Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

"I was responding to the following sentence in your post that seemed to suggest that the fact that something might be protected by TM might preclude its having copyright protection:

'There are the logos in the headers to each page, but one would think that would be covered by trademark, rather than copyright, and there's clearly no violation of trademarks in accurately showing the logo of companies we are discussing.' "

The sentence you quoted doesn't actually say that things can't be covered by both trademark and copyright. It simply says that this particular thing might be covered by trademark, but probably not copyright.

Re: Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

Even if he was cheap that is no excuse he could have used Joomla then(or something like it. i.e.: Silverstripe, Frog CMS, Drupal, XOOPS, TYPO 3, Wordpress and others) or any of the other hundreds of content managers available that have thousands of pre-made websites templates also available.

Re: Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

judging from the bad taste pert-tittied little justice goddess on his TM letterhead, it looks like he sculpted his own too, gawd! what awful art, his taste is worse than his knowledge of law....where did this guy go to school?

Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

You're right, but copyright protection works in different ways than trademark protection. Disney has a trademark on the word Disney. However, I can write the word Disney all I want and it won't violate trademark.

If I start trying to sell something using Disney to identify my business or product, then I run into problems. This is because trademark protects source identification, it doesn't protect expression.

Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

but the fact that they might be protected by TM doesn't foreclose them from being protected by copyright law.

Generally speaking things that are snappy enough to be covered by trademark are regarded as too small for copyright - so, although technically things could be covered by both , in practice they are usually mutually exclusive - see for example this UK FAQ

Re:

Soon he will be able to replace CwF stuff with "PfmL" (Pay for my Lawyers). Mike does seem to be racking up a fair bit of legal flack right now, one or the other will take him to court and leave him whining for a lack on money to work with.

Re: Re:

You inadvertantly make a huge point against copyright here. Even if the claims are completely groundless it still takes money to fight them. Or are you suggesting that the standard practice when faced with abuse is to just roll over and take it?

Re: Re: Re:

Just another thing that is wrong with the current system. It can be incredibly expensive for the average person to defend themselves in court, so lawsuits can become a very powerful tool for lawyers or monied people/corporations to leverage against the average joe.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

That is why if justice is about justice and fairness, all expenses should be calculate as a percentage of ones income and not fixed at a price point, so if it is hard for the little people it will be hard for the people with lots of money.

Re: Re:

Soon he will be able to replace CwF stuff with "PfmL" (Pay for my Lawyers). Mike does seem to be racking up a fair bit of legal flack right now, one or the other will take him to court and leave him whining for a lack on money to work with.

Your wishful musings are somewhat revealing about you.

Thoughtful logic and common sense are the enemies of spin doctors everywhere. Is that why Mike and the popularity of this site scare you so much?

Re:

Most likely. I wonder how Microsoft would appreciate him trying to patent troll on their turf with their newly aquired skype, or any of the other app/smart phones that provide voip from your phone..... hmmmm

Re:

His patent attempt has been rejected three different times for obviousness. Rather than re-write the claim to get past the prior art, He (or his lawyer) argue that, and i quote, "no suggestion to combine the references." What made that even more amusing beyond the incompetence of that argument is that the prior art cited actually disclosed that something similar to the second piece of cited prior art may be used.
While I am not a lawyer, I have been involved in the patent process for several years now. His attempt to get his patent through is laughable and most likely futile. hmmm, just like his bitcoin gambit.

God it's nice to see a company that doesn't just back down when facing the threat of legal action. Mike is always posting about people settling because it is a lot easier than fighting. I'm glad that when he is faced with similar threats that he stands for what he believes in. Bravo!

Re:

Unfortunately, one is often wrong.

Again, I find it difficult to see how there's a copyright interest there, especially as at least one logo is from a stock photo site (and is still available for licensing), and I wouldn't be surprised to discover the other one is as well.

Michael Pascazi, a lawyer and entrepreneur from New York, has slapped telecom giant Verizon with a class-action lawsuit, seeking to claim a total of $US20 billion in damages for the firm's alleged violations of federal wiretapping laws. The lawsuit claims that the company collaborated with the US government to violate these laws by handing over personal phone data without obtaining search warrants.

Laywer + Entrepreneur = Class Action Lawsuit

So who is this Michael Pascazi? He was once president of a firm called Fiber Optek, which in 1999 won a US$4 million contract to construct a fiber-optic infrastructure along from Hartford, Connecticut to Springfield, Massachusetts. Fiber Optek attempted to purchase the failed Global Crossing company in 2002 before going bankrupt itself, a victim of the dotcom implosion. Pascazi went on to study law. He also claims to be starting a biotechnology company, although details about this are scarce.

The more he does, the more he makes a fool out of himself and shows how little he knows about the law. This lawyer should go back to the hole he came from, before he permanently destroys his career and reputation as a lawyer.

Re:

OMG...that's about the worst representation I've seen in terms of a professional's website. I'd hazard a guess that it's yahoo's website builder...since it proudly displays "hosted by yahoo" at the bottom.

C'mon...my website is hosted by yahoo, but I sure as heck wouldn't used their web builder.

When I was in 3rd grade and I was getting picked on my father told me, "If someone pushes you, you push them back just hard enough that they won't want to push you again." After that I never had a problem with bullies again.

Glad you had your lawyer "explain" the potential implications of issuing a false notice.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Grammar nazi

Stationary and stationery ARE essentially the same word. The use of stationery to denote paper products comes from the "London Company of Stationers" who sold paper (and later became printers and publishers) at fixed (stationary!) places in the vicinity of Old St Pauls Cathedral in the City of London.

Re: Re: Grammar nazi

Re: Grammar nazi

The easy way to remember this: paper has an 'er' in it and stationery is the paper while stationary is the adjective for unmoving. Thus, 'my stationary stationery' is a valid phrase for your unmoving paper.

Would be funny if...

This would be a lot funnier if he weren't wasting people's time and money with this crap in the middle of a financial crisis. I would be quite sad if he *ever* got another client. Caveat emptor, I guess.

Scroll all the way to the bottom ...

A quick Google search shows other law firms that used the exact same template for their sites. My initial thought was that he used the Lady Justice logo from the template, but the istock photo is a closer match.

Re: Post official complaints

Why waste time complaining to the other crooks practicing law in NY? The best way to deal with attorney malfeasance is the Tony Soprano way. It always works. There is no appeals process. All outcomes are final. The cost is reasonable. The satisfaction is priceless.

Re: I'm a Scammer

After just reading these comments I would really like to know why he thought it would be a good idea to come at us, i mean really dude? A bunch of random people from the internet just took him down like 10 pegs. Got some serious butt hurt issues.